I can see where it was probably given to Peter 'first', but not alone...That is evident...
The food was primarily the Eucharist, which, Christ taught, was "food indeed". Nothing prevents us to understand is expansively as the entire teaching of the Church. This is how Peter himself understands it in 2 Peter -- as the deposit of faith he received firsthand.
Act 20:32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
I would say the food is the word of God...It builds you up as well as provides for the inheritance, because it contains the Truth for your salvation...
1Pe 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
Heb 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
There is no mutual exclusivity between St. Paul and St. Peter. Whatever St. Paul did, even if arguing with St. Peter, he did because St. Peter and St. James, "the pillars" authorized him.
I can't imagine where you got that opinion...It certainly didn't come from the bible...
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Paul, at the very least, was on equal footing with Peter...
My church, your church and every other Christian church in the U.S. fall under the scope of the ministry of the apostle Paul, not Peter...We are the Gentile church...
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
There is NOTHING in the verse you refer to that puts James, John and Peter above Paul...They didn't give him the hand of permission, they gave him the hand of fellowship...
You think that if the three would have disapproved that Paul would have halted his ministry to the Gentiles, which God commanded him to do??? I think not...
Peter is adressed three times by name, and is told to feed the sheep (with variations in proper name and in the verb used and the gender of the sheep) in John 21. Peter was not alone when Jesus spoke, but the speech is addressed to Peter alone. Which gospel do you read where a similar charge was given someone else?
I would say the food is the word of God
It is a valid interpretation, however the Eucharist is also described as "food indeed".
I can't imagine where you got that opinion [that Peter and James authorised Paul]
There is NOTHING in [Gal 2:9) you refer to that puts James, John and Peter above Paul
"18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1)
"9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal 2:9).
The reference to "pillars", and the imperative "that we should" shows that it was a decision taken by Peter and James. We also know that the decision "to go into Gentiles" originated with Peter alone: "in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10).
We are the Gentile church
We owe our conversion to the Father who coverted us to Christ, to Peter who decided to prozelytize among the Gentiles, to Paul who did most of that work, and to the Catholic Church which maintained the deposit of faith for us for centuries and fought off heresies.
if the three would have disapproved that Paul would have halted his ministry to the Gentiles, which God commanded him to do???
They wouldn't have disapproved, -- this is an impossible hypothetical that three apostles of Christ would disapprove of the work done for Christ. However, Paul felt it necessary to establish his credentials as an adoptive apostle as one sent by the natural apostles. It was indeed important for him, because "how shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom 10:14).